Washington pension funds are much more solid than most

Some states are trying risky, high-return investments to make up for recent losses, but officials here are playing it safer, a strategy that so far has served them well.

Will the Washington Legislature have to bail out any state pension funds?

Wikipedia contributor Cacophany

Will the Washington Legislature have to bail out any state pension funds?

Washington Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown, D-Spokane.

Washington Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown, D-Spokane.

The stock market is like a roller coaster. The Euro Zone may break up. A largely jobless recovery persists. Safe havens like money-market funds and treasury bonds have interest rates near zero. What’s an investor to do?

If you are the Washington State Investment Board, you do what you have always done: Look to the long-term return and don’t get carried away by short-term shifts and changes. That approach has worked for years, giving Washington state one of the most secure public pension systems in the country.

Many pension funds in other states are in terrible shape, and they were in bad shape even before the late-2008 crash in investments. A study by the Pew Center said there was a $1 trillion gap in early 2008 between the money states had set aside to pay for employees' retirement benefits and the estimated cost of those benefits. And that gap — $2.35 trillion was set aside to pay for benefits costing $3.35 trillion — is no doubt much larger now because of the freefall in pension-fund values in the second half of 2008 and early 2009.

Washington got good marks in the study. In 2000, just over half the states had fully funded pension systems, the study said, but by 2008, Washington was one of only four states which could make that claim. “Washington has generally kept a careful eye on the health of its many pension plans, which are well funded on an aggregate basis,” Pew reported.

The state does have its own problems, but they are limited to unfunded liabilities in two pension plans that were closed in the 1970s. That liability now totals about $3 billion.

The State Investment Board manages investments for 17 retirement plans for public employees, teachers, school employees, law enforcement officers, firefighters and judges. In addition, the Board manages investments for 22 public funds that support or benefit industrial insurance, colleges and universities, wildlife protection, and families with members who have developmental disabilities.

Fifteen of those are fully funded. The Investment Board's return on its investments still is above the 8 percent long-term target set by the Legislature, although losses over the past few years have pushed that number closer to the 8 percent mark. The long-term performance of the funds stands now at about 8.43 percent.

“We are long-term horizon investors,” said Theresa Whitmarsh, executive director of the Investment Board. “We have been through this before. We have the luxury of waiting out the market. We do not think it is prudent to react to short-term shifts. We do not try to follow the market.”

State pension funds, like almost all investments, have taken a severe hit from plummeting equity markets, a depression in real estate markets and the continuing side effects of this ongoing Great Recession.

From peak to trough, a very broad measure of the Washington investment funds showed losses of more than 30 percent of value — from a high of $67.7 billion in October 2007 to a low of $45.4 billion in March 2009. The many funds managed by the board have gained back some losses as stock markets and some other investments have recovered. At the end of March this year, the broad measure stood at about $55 billion.

While the current state of pension investments is holding up, there continues to be a nagging problem with the two funds closed in the 1970s. Those two cover older teachers and public employees — the Teachers’ Retirement System Plan 1 and the Public Employees Retirement Plan 1 — are they are underfunded by 77 percent and 72 percent respectively, according to the state.

“These are obligations, real debts,” said State Treasurer Jim McIntire.

Pension funds, whether state or private, operate on a relatively simple principle. Investment returns and interest income provide enough funds to cover the current payments to retirees. The problem with the two funds in question is the worry that investment returns will not cover those obligations in the future and the state will be forced to tap the general fund. With the state already facing huge deficits, tapping the general fund is the last thing anyone wants to do.

Sen. Lisa Brown (D-Spokane), Senate majority leader, said she believes the Treasurer is “overreacting.” But she does not dismiss the problem. “We have a challenge ahead,” she said. “But we are also ahead of most other states.” Senator Brown said that “this is not the time for pension enhancements” although there are always issues on the margin that should be considered.

The 2010 Legislature, for example, approved a measure to increase benefits for the families of law enforcement personnel killed in the line of duty. It allows officers’ survivors to collect lifetime pensions regardless of how long their loved ones worked. However, it did not contain a proposed provision that would have allowed spouses to keep collecting workers’ compensation benefits even if they remarried.

The health of state pension plans around the country remains an issue that often falls under the radar of public attention. Just last week, the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University released a study showing that public workers and state and federal officials alike have cause for serious concern about pensions.

Data showed that state pensions will place “tremendous pressure on the federal government to bail out financially insolvent states at a price tag likely to match or exceed the recent bailout of the U.S. financial system.”

Some states see the problem and are trying a risky approach: They are seeking higher returns for their pension funds, to make up for ground lost in the last couple of years and to pay all the benefits promised to present and future retirees. Higher returns come with more risk.

Whitmarsh admits that “these are challenging times” for investors in general and for pension funds in particular. But she also said it is not time to change any of the tried and true investment philosophies that have worked for this state in the past. For example, the State Investment Board steered clear of housing investments such as the sub-prime mortgage market and exotic investments like credit default swaps that tanked so badly.

Whitmarsh credits her team at the Investment Board. Fixed income investments — mostly bonds — are managed internally with experts doing their own fundamental analysis and credit analysis. “They made some very good decisions,” Whitmarsh said.

Still, times have changed. Liz Mendizabal, the board’s public affairs director, said she is reluctant to go to New York again. “Last time I was there it was the day Lehman Brothers collapsed,” she said.


About the Author

Stephen H. Dunphy writes on business and economic issues for Crosscut. He was a business editor and columnist for a number of years at The Seattle Times.

Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!

Comments:

Posted Tue, May 25, 6:36 a.m. Inappropriate

Actually this report from the Pew Center on Washington doesn't look that good.

http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewcenteronthestatesorg/Initiatives/R_and_D/Trillion_Dollar_Gap_factsheets_Washington.pdf

Just what is Mr. Dunphy trying to sell?

Cameron

Posted Tue, May 25, 7:09 a.m. Inappropriate

Just what is Mr. Dunphy trying to sell?

Probably the notion that our state's Democrat party has exercised fiscal restraint. I think most of us can see otherwise.

BlueLight

Posted Tue, May 25, 10:32 a.m. Inappropriate

when you look at the Washington page mentioned above, it does sound really scary. I think the author's point is things are even scarier for other states.

How are individual cities and school districts? What type of liabilities do they have if the plans are underfunded?

sjenner

Posted Tue, May 25, 10:48 a.m. Inappropriate

To the other commentators: Notice that the Pew report doesn't separate out the plan 1 pension funds that Dunphy reports on above. Calling those a "nagging problem" is hardly dishonest journalism. Neither is reporting on the fact that the other pension funds seem to be in relatively decent shape.

Trevor

Posted Tue, May 25, 10:56 a.m. Inappropriate

Does it really matter which individual pension fund is short? The liability still needs to be made up by someone (look in the mirror). As late as last session the legislature was borrowing pension funds to "balance" the budget. Borrow 550 million from the Pension Funds this year, pay back 2 Billion by 2024. It doesn't sound like such a good deal to me.

Cameron

Posted Tue, May 25, 11:12 a.m. Inappropriate

"Does it really matter which individual pension fund is short?" Yes, if your argument is that Dunphy was somehow whitewashed the actual state of our pension system. He didn't, as far as I can tell.

Trevor

Posted Tue, May 25, 2:30 p.m. Inappropriate

Yep, I am only in debt 3 Billion dollars in two of my seventeen accounts so I am OK, who cares of those two have the oldest population of retirees and thus the highest costs and payouts.

Cameron

Posted Wed, May 26, 9:18 a.m. Inappropriate

Assuming an 8% return in the 1990s may have been reasonable but it sounds very optimistic now. Back then we had an economy that was growing around 3% along with mild inflation. We also had, for a brief moment, a balanced federal budget. Debt burdens are likely to slow everything down, public and private. It is nice to know that we are not in as bad shape as some other states but making that 8% return is will be a real accomplishment if it is done.

kieth

Posted Wed, May 26, 2:51 p.m. Inappropriate

My gosh! This story is literally unbelievable! Yes, everything stated in the piece is true. But there's a heckuva lot more to the story.

The problems with the state PERS 1 and TRS 1 systems aren't some nagging little problem. Pension contributions by the state will have to TRIPLE by 2013-15 to make up for irresponsible legislative spending decisions of the past. That's a $2 billion chunk of the general fund budget. Pension payments will wind up squeezing out other spending. Here's another way of looking at it -- I'm not sure how big the state budget will be that biennium, but my guess is that it's about five percent. That's as big as it's ever been.

Yes, the stock market crash had something to do with this, but we can also blame a history of legislative irresponsibility that has deferred tough decisions as long as possible, has always been too optimistic about stock market returns, and has been too generous with benefits.

Whitemarsh's management of the state investments is not the issue. I have heard nothing to indicate a concern on that score.

The problem is the state's pension policy, which is controlled by the legislature and the executive branch. And I'm stunned that a piece that obviously displays deep knowledge of the state investment board could ignore the rather frightening reports from the office of state actuary. How could it mention the expected 8 percent rate of return without mentioning that there was a serious debate on this issue last year, that the actuary's office begged lawmakers to adopt a more cautious figure, and that there were deep divisions in the final vote? Surely these issues must have surfaced during the reporting process.

Anyway, there's a good deal more to this story, it's all pretty frightening, and I've gotta say my jaw about fell open when I saw a headline that declare all's fine with the pension system. Huh? Are we on the same planet?

Erik Smith
Olympia, Wash.

ErikSmith

Posted Wed, May 26, 4:36 p.m. Inappropriate

It will be difficult to claw back from the Gain-Sharing fiasco.

Cameron

Posted Sat, May 29, 12:26 a.m. Inappropriate

As I understand it, Washington moved sooner than most states to limit future pension obligations (moving from PERS1 to PERS2 to PERS3). It wasn’t like Oregon, for example, that paid 8% return on public employees’ investments for decades.

The investment returns by the pension board have exceeded most other states as well.

Looking at the Pew Report. The pension fund was probably 120% funded in 1999 due to the stock market run up. Small wonder the state didn’t fully fund current obligations until that number dropped to 100% (given Tim Eyman and others). Per the Pew Report, the state was $10.9 billion underinvested ($3 billion for PERS1 and $7.9 billion for health care). In Oct 2007 the fund had $67.7 billion – $12 billion more than the $55 billion required. In other words, it was fully funded. Now it’s back to $55 billion. Meanwhile salaries haven’t grown in 2 years and maybe 5% of employees on the state retirement system have been laid off. I don’t want to make light of a $10 billion dollar shortfall, but it could disappear just as easily as grow. I’m focusing my effort on “anti-goosing” legislation – so employees can’t accumulate a lot of overtime their last 3 years, or take a really high paying job (if they can get it) and boost their pension by 30%.

I could name any number of bond-like investments that get you close to 8%, and I don’t have access to high-frequency trading funds (like the WA pension fund does) that get 20% a year – even now.

Regarding PERS1 – per the state pension report of June 30, 2009, there are only 11,000 some people left on it – you had to start work by 1977 to qualify. In the past 5 years, the number of people claiming PERS1 dropped by 40%

To sjenner: Many of the cities, counties, and school districts in Washington are part of the Washington state pension system.

pin

Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.

Join Crosscut now!
Subscribe to our Newsletter

Follow Us »